Isn't all this talk of illegal acts and presumed innocence immaterial since it's just tax avoidance and not evasion that Amazon and others are allegedly involved in doing (and it's only the latter that is illegal)? Sorry if this has been discussed earlier in the thread.

That you should treat people like they are not convicted is a totally different question. One name of the principle is "presumption of innocence". Note that the principle is not called "you are innocent".

Something is apparently being lost in translation.

"Presumed innocent" means exactly *that*; in the eyes of the *law* you are *literally* innocent until convicted.

For that matter, as DNA testing has proved over and over, hundreds of convicted "wrongdoers" in jail are in fact totally innocent of the charges they were convicted of "violating".

Any legal system run by humans is going to be fallible and subject to abuses so those protections are necessary merely to *minimize* the impact of the unavoidable errors. Legal subtleties are likewise a necessity to deal with a world of shades of gray; we *need* distinctions between merely gaming the system (Tax minimization) and breaking existing laws (outright tax easion) as much as we need a distiction between accidental manslaughter (often out of sheer stupidity) and willful murder out of outright malice. This latter distinction is currently being played out in an american court right now in an unnecessary "drama" that will end in nothing good for anybody.

Isn't all this talk of illegal acts and presumed innocence immaterial since it's just tax avoidance and not evasion that Amazon and others are allegedly involved in doing (and it's only the latter that is illegal)? Sorry if this has been discussed earlier in the thread.

One would think so but in the face of what I've seen described as "AMAZON DERANGEMENT SYNDROME" the distinction between legal and illegal acts evaporates before the force of their outrage.

And proven-false myths keep getting repeated over and over, as if sheer repetition could make them magically true.

Isn't all this talk of illegal acts and presumed innocence immaterial since it's just tax avoidance and not evasion that Amazon and others are allegedly involved in doing (and it's only the latter that is illegal)? Sorry if this has been discussed earlier in the thread.

So then you back off this previous statement of yours: "Amazon isn't merely playing the cards it's been dealt, it stacked the deck, dealt the cards and now claims to be "merely playing by the rules""? Okay, then. Fair enough.

--Pat

No, I do not. I do not need to, because that statement, as should be clear in context, does not refer to one particular case but to Amazon's (and, by extension, every large corporation's) behaviour with regards to politics and law.

It may not have dealt the cards in that particular case (the French one under discussion at the beginning of the thread), but it sure knows how to get the cards it wants in other cases. Which is not something that only Amazon does -- almost every big corporation does that.

It may not have dealt the cards in that particular case (the French one under discussion at the beginning of the thread), but it sure knows how to get the cards it wants in other cases. Which is not something that only Amazon does -- almost every big corporation does that.

Matt

Well, you've used a broad brush here to make generalizations. Outside of Europe, Amazon may or may not throw its clout around in an aggressive manner, but at least you admit in regards to the particular issue being discussed in this thread -- their practices in Europe -- there is no evidence to suggest they exert unfair influence. The EU laws that are in question likely preceded Amazon's entry into the European marketplace.